### Federal Register/

### Vol. 65, 

### No. 26/Tuesday, 

### February 8, 

### 2000/

### Notices 6195

DEPARTMENTOFENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy
Building Energy Codes Program: Workshop on Analysisof Standard 90.1-1 999

AGENCY: 

### Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy,Department of Energy. ACTION:

### Notice ofpublic workshop.

SUMMARY: 

### TheDepartment of Energy is in the process of making a determination as to whether ASHRAEI IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 would save energy in commercial buildings. In doing so,weare performing a comparative analysis of the 1989 edition of that standard to the 1999 edition and seeking input on our proposed approach
to carrying out that analysis. DATES: 

### TheDepartment will hold a public workshop on February 17,2000, inWashington, DC. Please sendrequests to speak at the workshop sothat we receive them by 4:00 p.m., February 14, 2000. The Department must alsoreceive
ten (10) 

### copies 

### of statements tobegiven
at thepublicworkshop nolater than 4:00 p.m., February 15,2000,andwe request that you provide a computer diskette of each statement in Wordperfect TM 

### at that time.

ADDRESSES: 

### Please address requests for the proposed methodology for the comparativeanalysis or requests to make statementsat the publicworkshop andcopies ofthose statements to Brenda Edwards-Jones at the following address: U.S. 

### Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE--41,1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

### , 6196 

### Federal Reeister/ 

### Vol. 65, 

### No. 26/

### Tuesdav, Februarv 8, 

### 2000/ 

### Notices

Washington.DC 205854121,You commercial building code regarding 11. 'Discussion shollld identify documents as either, energy efficiency ineccordalce wiih P_pored Comparative of "Request for Proposed Methodology," or Standard 90.1-1999. Each State is Stnndard 90.1-1989 andStnndard 90.I- "Request to Speak," or "Statement," further required, within two years of an 199g followed by, "'iYorkshop on Analysis of affirmative determination, to certify and Standard 90 1-1999". The workshop demonstrate to the Secretary that its We propose to carry out both a will begin at 9:00 a.m., on February 17, State buildingcode meets qualitative and quantitative comparison 2000, in Room 1E-245 at the 1J.S. or exceeds the revised standard. If. on ofthe Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard Department of Energy, Forrestal the other hand, the Secretarv determines 90.1-1999. ~uilding, 1000

### independence Avenue, SW,'ISashington,DC.

You can mad copies of the transcript of the public workshop in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (Room No. iE-190) at the 1i.S.Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington. DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You
may obtain copies of the referenced standard ASIIRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-1999 by request from the American Society of Fieating, Refrigerating artd Air-(:onditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie (:ircie. YE, Atlanta,CA 30329, (404)636-8400, hffp:// ww~~.ASIfR.iE.org. You may obtain a
copy of the "Proposed Methodology for

a Comparative Analysis of ASFIRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999" from the Department by request from the address listed above. The proposed methodology
may also be downloaded from the Office of Building Technical Assistance web site listed below.

The latest information regarding the public workshop is avaiIable on the Officeof Building Technical Assistance web site at the following address: http:/!www.cre~~.doe.gov/kuildingsIcodesstandartisi.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTA~: Jnan J. Boulin, 1T.S.Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-42, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington. DC 203854121, (202)586- 9870, emaii:Jean.BoulinQEE.DOE.~v

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction

'4. Authoriiy

Section 304(b)(2) of Title 111 of the Energy Consarvation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA or Act),requires the Secretary of Energy (We,DOE. or the Department; to determine whether the revisions of .lSHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1 embodied in the 1999edition will improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. Anotice of the determination is required to be published in the Federal Register. If the Secretarv rna~es an affirmative determination,each State is required to review and update the provisions of its that Standard90.1-1999 wiil not improve energy efficiency in commercial

### buildings, then State commercial code provisions regarding
energy efficiency shall continue to meet

or exceed Standard 90.1-1989.



### B. Background

In preparation for making the determination, we are doing a comparative analysis between the 1989 edition and 1999 edition of Standard 90.1. An initial analysis was prepared in the summer of 1999and the results were presented to the Standing Standards Project Committee 90.1, the ASHRAE committee responsible for revising Standard 90.1. Itwas also shared with other interested parties. At that time we identified the shortcomings that we perceived in the analysis,and suggested how some could be resolved. Comments

were requested on these issues and other issues that people might identify. We have developed an approach to complete that analysis that addresses these issues.We are holding a workshop
to obtain comment on the approach and
to identify any other issues. This workshop is the subject of today's notice.

We propose to carry nut both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999. The proposed analysis would provide qualitative comparisons of the stringencies between the two editions of Standard 90.1 in the scope of the standard;the building envelope requirements; thebuilding iighting requirements; the building mechanical equipment requirements; and the paths
to compliance. The quantitative comparison of energy codes would be done on wholebuilding energy simulationsof buildings built to each standard. We propose to simulate seven representative building types in 11 represeniative I1.S. climates. The detailed methodology for the quantitative comparison is presented in "Proposed Methodology for a ComparativeAnalysis of ASHRAEi IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and Standard 90.1-1999." Qualitative Chmparisons

The proposed analysis would provide qualitative comparisons of the stringencies between the two editions of Standard 90.1 in each of the following

areas: Scopeof the standard, Building envelope requirements, Building lighting requirements, Building mechanical equipment

requirements, Paths to compliance.

The emphasis of the qualitative comparison wot~ld differ between the envelope,lighting,and mechanical sections. In the huiiding envelope section,the comparison would focus on the impact of the different building envelope requirements on the building heating and cooling loads for different building types and climates.The envelope comparison would examine requirements for all envelope components, including roofs, walls, floors,and fenestration as well as explore variations in construction types and in the window-to-wall ratio.

In the lighting requirements comparison, the focus would be primarily on the impact the different lighting requirements have on lighting
energy use, as well as on building loads. The comparison ~vould look separateiy
at the whole building and space-byspace iighting requirements in both standards in a variety of commercial building types, as well as examine the affect of any "additional lighting power allowances."

The mechanical requirements comparison ~vould be divided into comparisons of equipment efficiency requirements and system design requirements. The system design requirements affect both the system efficiency, system load, and may have direct energy impacts due for instance
to fandesign.Tables of relative stringency and estimated positive or negative national energy impact would be prepared based on practical application of the system design requirements in each standard.

Each standard has multiple ways to demonstrate compliance. We would
enumerate the multiple paths to compiiance,but do not propose a detailed comparison of the relative

### Federal Register/ 

### Voi. 65, 

### No. 26

### /

### Tuesdav. Februarv

stringency of alternate paths internal to a single standard or between standards. The large quantity of variables among the alternativecompliance paths would make such analysis prohibitive to undertake. Further,weknow of no data

on which to base the selectton of representative requirements for such an analysis. Assignment of requirements would be arbitrary. Rather we would focus on what webelieve 1s the most commorl approach to using the standard In question for particular building types. QuantitativeComparison

We propose to base the quantitative comparison of energy codes on whole building energy simulations of buildings built to each standard.We wotlld simtllate seven representative building types in 11 representative U.S. climates. The simulated buildings would utilize the 15zonebuilding prototype used in previous DOE butlding research,and the
cnergy use intens~ties for each zone from the simulations would be scaled to correctly reflect variations in characteristic building sizes and shapes for each representative building type. Encrgy lJse Intensities (EUIs)developed for each representative building type would be weighted by total national
square footage in each representativc building category to provide an estimate of the national energy savings. Note that only changes to new buildings wolild be considered in this quantitative analysis. The scope of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 also addresses additions and renovations to existing buildings. While this may have

a significant energy impact,we do not believe the data is available to quantify this impact. We propose to point out this difference in the qualitative comparison of the two standards.

1.Procedures for Submitting Requests To Speak

You will find the time and place of the public workshop listed at the beginning of this notice. The Department invites any person who would like to attend the public workshop to notify Brenda EdwarcisJonesat (202)586-2943. You may hand deliver requests to speak to the address indicated at thebeginning of this notice between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or send them by mail.

2. <:onduct of Workshop

The workshop will be conducted in an informal,conference style. The Department may use a professional facilitator to facilitate discussion,and a court reporter will be present to record the transcript of the meeting. We will present summaries of comments received before the workshop, allow time for presentations by workshop participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting the proposed analysis. Following the workshop, we will provide an additional oneweek
comment period, during which interested parties will have an opportunity to present further comment

on the proposed analysis.

The Department will arrange for a transcript of the workshop and will make the entire record of the workshop, includingthe transcript, available for inspection in the Department's Freedom of Information Reading Room. Any person may purchase a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

C.Issues Requestedfor Comment

The Department of Energy is interested inreceiving comments andlor data concerningissuesrelating to the comparative analysis of Standard 90.1- 1989and Standard 90.1-1999. We are especially interested in any comments

or data regarding:

(I) The sevenbuilding types listed below and selected for analysis. (2)The 11representative climate locations proposed for the analysis.

(3)The frequencyof use of alternative paths to compliancein building standards (e.g. space-by-space versus whole building lighting power allowances).

(4) New non-residential building construction databy State or census division andbuilding type.

(3)Data to quantify the impact of Standard 90.1-1999 on additions ancl renovations to existing buildings.

(6)The prevalence of the semi-heated building envelope subcategory in the building types proposed for analysis. (7)Speclficcomments on the preliminary energy savings analysis distributed in June 1999.

The sevenbuilding types proposed for the analysis are Office,Retail, Education,Lodging, Public Assembly, Food Service, and Warehouse and Storage. It is currently proposed to include outpatient health care buildings in the office building category.These buildings together will account for approximately 80% of commercial huilding energy use, and national ~veights for each of these building categories can be readily obtained through the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data. One category ofbuilding which is conspicuously absent is multifamily dwellings over three stories above grade. Relevant data on current stock, 8. 2000

### / 

### Notices 6197

-- -- construction, or huilding configuration for this category would allow its inclusion in the analysis.

The 11climate variations proposed for the analysis are the sameas those used in the National Energy Model, version 5,and in the initial analysis and they are proposed tobe represented by the same climate locations used in that analysis. Theclimate locations are: Providence, Rhode Island; Detroit, Michigan, Pvlinneapolis,Minnesota: Knoxville,Tennessee; Shreveport, Louisiana, Tampa,Florida; Denver, Colorado;Phoenix,Arizona: Seattle Washington; Fresno,California; and Los Angeles,California. We would be interested to know of any data or analysis that would indicate that these

are inappropriate for this analysis,and what alternatives are more appropriate and why.

This analysis proposes to setcriteria for buildings using what arebelieved to be the most common paths to compliance. Any data describing the relative frequency of use of alternative paths to compliance would be appreciated as would more detailed data

onbuilding construction by State, region andbuilding type.Additionally,

we are interested in data regarding the type and fraction ofbuildings which should be modeled as semi-heated buildings for the 90.1-1999 standard. Finally, as the methodology proposed is

an extension of what was done for the preliminary analysis inJune,any comments on that methodology and the questions raised in the presentation, would be appreciated.

These data will help us to make a determination tvhether ASFiRAEiIESNrl Standard 90.1-1999 will improve
energy efficiency in commercial buildings.

Issued in ivashington,DC, on February 2. 2000,
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretar)., EnergyEficiency and Renewabie Energ-v. [FR Doc. 00-2793 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-014'